BALLARD/STROM DEBATE ON BAPTISM

 
 
The Scriptures teaches that obedience is from the inside out. We are first changed 
in the inner man via the new birth and then the outward "good fruit" of obedience 
including Baptism results.

Thus we are born-again/saved/forgiven at the moment we confess our sins and 
accept Christ as our savior - believing in Him as our Savior is the moment of 
salvation" 
 
Affirm: Bob Strom 
Deny: Voyd N. Ballard 
 
This is my 3rd and last Rebuttal to Bob Strom's 3rd. & last Affirmative. 
 
In 3 Affirmatives I affirmed that water baptism to a believing penitent is for the 
remission of sins. Strom agreed to affirm that the sinner is saved by faith only, but 
he changed his position so many times until it was impossible to determine just 
what he was trying to affirm. He demonstrated his inability to deal with Biblical 
arguments, and made statements throughout the debate that were wholly untrue, 
and he continued to do so in this his last affirmative. If he is an expert at anything 
it is "whistling in the graveyard."

He is also an expert at misrepresenting his opponent. the following statement of 
his is an example:
 
Bob said: 
Several times Voyd has attempted to draw the dialogue far afield of our subject by 
appealing to fantasy." 

I have promoted the Bible truth that at the moment we BELIEVE, we are saved.

Voyd
He has the audacity to make this statement despite the fact that I have plead with 
him from the beginning of this debate to produce just ONE verse anywhere in the 
Bible where any person was ever said to be justified on the account of their faith 
until that faith acted in obedience to God.

I have repeatedly called attention to the fact that Christ "Though he were a Son, 
yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made 
perfect, he became the author unto all them that obey him." (Heb. 5:8-9)

Bob claims he has introduced at least 70 passages that teaches man is saved by 
faith. Fine and good. Let him produce 70 more. None of them teach that the sinner 
is saved "the moment he believes." I stated in the very beginning of this debate 
that I accepted in advance every passage in the Bible that teaches the sinner is 
saved by faith, but it is a faith that moves him to obey God.

Bob makes the worst mess of John 3: 5 I believe I ever read. Jesus plainly stated 
that "Except a man be born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the 
kingdom of God." He tries to make the later in this verse mean the physical birth, 
but it will not work. Jesus said "A MAN" and a grown MAN cannot enter the 
second time into his mother's womb and be born. That birth is physical and can 
only be experienced by an "Infant", but Jesus is not talking about "AN INFANT" 
being born again, but about "A MAN" so only an ADULT can be born of water 
and the Spirit into THE KINGDOM OF GOD. So the water in this verse is water 
baptism for this is what puts one INTO the Kingdom of God. 

I ask Bob in every post if anyone could be saved OUT of Christ and he never did 
answer, and the reason he did not answer is because he knows the Bible teaches 
that we are baptized INTO Christ (Rom. 6:3-4 - Gal. 3:26-29 One cannot be in 
Christ without being in His Kingdom (Col.1:12-14) By means of the physical 
birth (as infants) we enter into this world, and by means of the spiritual birth, 
water and the Spirit, (as Adults) we enter into Christ's Spiritual Kingdom. 
 
So we see what a mess Bob is in on the "new birth" and I warned him in my first 
affirmative not to make the mistake that Nicodemus made. Bob's big problem in 
trying to debate is that he jumps in "where angels fear to tread."

Now, I want us to look once more to some of my arguments which Bob 
completely ignored:
 
1. John 6: 29 - "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath 
sent." Bob keeps saying the only work the sinner has to perform is believe in 
Christ, but he says the sinner cannot believe in Christ until and unless God sends 
him the Holy Spirit to enable him to believe. This makes God responsible for 
every lost soul. Just take a look at the tangled mess Bob has made:

1. The sinner is saved the moment he believes. 
2. He cannot be saved without belief in Christ. 
3. He cannot believe until God sends him the Spirit. 
4. If God does not send the Spirit he is forever lost. 
5. God and God alone is responsible for his lost condition!

This is the mess he is in and he will never be able to "wiggle" himself out of it.

Realizing what a mess he is in on the above, he tries to get out of it by saying that 
God "draws" the sinner so he can hear and believe and cites John 6:44 to prove 
his assertion, but that passage is against him.

No one denies that God "draws" the sinner to him, but the question is HOW? And 
the answer is in the very passage Bob cited, Jno.6:44-45: 
"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I 
will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all 
taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father 
cometh unto me." 

So how does God "draw" the sinner to Him?

By TEACHING - HEARING - AND LEARNING, so Bob is now driven from his 
"Drawing" argument because he says the sinner is so dead that he cannot even be 
TAUGHT! 
 
God's plan is:
 
TEACHING-HEARING-LEARNING-BELIEVING- and OBEYING 
 
But Bob says he can do none of these until and unless the Holy Spirit performs a 
miraculous operation on his heart. Christ says he can be taught, hear, learn, 
believe, and obey. Bob and Ellen say he cannot. 

I'll take Jesus Christ. 

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."

3. Matt.28:18-20 is a parallel passage to Mark 16:16. I pointed out in my last 
affirmative that no one can be saved until and unless he comes INTO relationship 
with God, Christ and the Holy Spirit. 

Bob says, 
"Ooops! Mistake again. Matt.28 tells us to MAKE disciples Then to Baptize."
 
Voyd
Now, Bob -- answer a simple question: Can anyone be saved WITHOUT being in 
a relationship with God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit? 

You can answer that question with a "Yes" or "No" Will you do it? 

Well, You Readers can see he did not do it. What do you suppose is the matter 
with him, that he will dance all around, misrepresenting me, but refuse to answer 
a simple question? He claims to be a debater, and every debater knows that the 
Affirmative is obligated to answer the questions of the Negative. Well I am asking 
the question again. Lets see what he does this time. He still did not answer this 
simple a question and he cannot answer it and stay with Ellen's doctrine and he 
knows it.
 
Bob knows that no one can be saved who is not in relation with God, Christ and 
the Holy Spirit, and he knows that we are baptized INTO that relationship. This 
makes baptism necessary to salvation and destroys Bob's "salvation by faith only 
doctrine" which he says he produced more than 70 passages to prove, but not one 
of those passages proves it. 

4. What did Bob do with my argument on Acts 2;38?

He observed the passover on that one. He simply passed over it!! 
But that will not get the job done, so here it is again:

"Turning to the 2nd. chapter of Acts we find the Apostles preaching the dead, 
buried, and resurrected Christ. When the people realized they were guilty of 
crucifying the Lord, they cried out to Peter and the rest of the Apostles, "Men and 
brethren, what shall we do?"  Then Peter said unto them, "Why, there is not a 
thing in this world you can do. Just believe on the Lord and you will receive the 
remission of your sins." EH?

Is that what Peter said? That is what Bob would have said had he been the 
preacher there; That however, is a far cry from what the inspired Peter told them. 
He said, "Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for 
the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38)

The English word "For" in Acts 2:38 is from the Greek word "Is" and is found 
1447 times in the Greek New Testament. The word is never translated "because 
of", but in all 1447 times is translated "Unto", "In order to", "toward" etc., and is 
so translated in Acts 2:38.
 
Whatever repentance is "for" in this verse baptism is "for" in this verse. The word 
"and" (Repent AND be baptized) is what we call a "copulative conjunction". A 
copulative conjunction joins (or couples) together words and phrases

of equal rank and importance, so when Peter commanded them to "REPENT 
AND BE BAPTIZED, Baptism is just as important as repentance, and both are 
"for" "in order to" the remission of sins. Eliminate baptism and see the command, 
"Repent everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins."  
What does "for" mean--does it mean "because of"?

Repent because your sins have been forgiven, or repent in order to have them 
forgiven? Will Bob or any one else take the position that the sinner repents 
because his sins have been forgiven? Now put baptism back into the command, as 
the Bible has it--"Repent and be baptized everyone of you for the remission of 
your sins." Does baptism in the passage change the meaning of the word "for" in 
the sentence? Of course not! So REPENTANCE and BAPTISM are FOR the 
remission of sins, and my proposition is proven, and Bob and all the rest of the 
denominational preachers combined cannot disprove it, and they may as well try 
to turn the Rocky Mountains over with a broken cornstalk as to try it. 
 
And thus, we bring this debate to a close with Bob's utter failure to prove that "the 
sinner is saved by faith only" a proposition which he signed, but abandoned half 
way through the debate!

Voyd-THE OLD TIMER